ONCE, on a largely deserted outcrop on an isolated part of the Canary Islands, I was approached by a walker who was obviously lost.

“Are you English?” he inquired.

‘No, I am Scottish.”

“Same thing,” he responded.

“So you are happy if I describe you as Scots,” I replied.

This exchange was all conducted in a sense of mischief on my part. The tendency for English to be a synonym for British extends far beyond a forlorn walker in Tenerife. It is, for example, a regular occurrence in books and articles written by people who really should know better.

It is also, of course, the staple of the broadcasts of the Euro 2020 football competition where the use of “we” has irritated those in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland who regard the English national team, with varying degrees of affection, as “them”

READ MORE: Wisdom on the way to Islay

The significance of this usage can be debated but a more interesting trend has emerged strongly. This has casually been described as English exceptionalism or English nationalism but more precisely it can be measured by an increasing desire by our neighbours not to be defined solely by Britishness or the Union.

Indeed, polls have shown that the English are divided on its future. A Panelbase poll taken last year showed that 49% wanted England to become independent. Further, 52% of those who voted Conservative in the December 2019 general election wanted an independent England.

This is, frankly, an astonishing figure, given there has been no campaigning on the ills of England, indeed most politicians south of the border speak of the necessity of maintaining the status quo.

It raises, however, the prospect of Boris Johnson facing a pincer movement on independence for Scotland. The push from the SNP may be oddly allied with a substantial constituency in England that seeks the same outcome.

Amid the daily rammies on home rule in this country, there is the occasional whisper that England has never been asked what it wants. This, of course, was never true. It has become starkly obvious in recent times that England has been asked what it wants and has given unambiguous answers.

It has said no to political and economic union with Europe. It has said no to any form of socialism, even the most diluted variety. It has said no to freedom of movement and retains, at the very least, a reluctance towards even limited immigration.

These views may be held by some Scots but stand at odds with the principles and ambitions of the SNP which has overwhelming support at the ballot box and has formed a government continuously for 14 years.

READ MORE HUGH: Stolen car? Who cares?

This schism is not a blip. There is a tendency for recency bias in the observations of commentators. But the English slide towards what might be termed the right has been gradual but discernible.

The Tony Blair interregnum in Tory rule should not be seen as a break in this tendency but part of it. There was no pretence of any tilt towards socialism or even a nod towards left-wing radicalism in Blair’s words or actions.

It may be instructive to extend scrutiny of political shifts beyond this century. An apt moment to consider may be the general election of 1966, just more than half a century ago, a mere blink in historical terms.

Then there was a football tournament going on where England reached the final. Then there was the European question, one never satisfactorily answered in England. But there was a Labour leader who won an election.

Harold Wilson led Labour to its second biggest majority with a manifesto that included a national plan to integrate road and rail transport, to build more homes for tenants and to re-nationalise the steel industry.

This is the sort of programme that would have been embraced by Jeremy Corbyn who was run out of town as being the advance guard of communism.

Yet the 1966 manifesto was regarded at the time by many Labour politicians and voters as not radical enough, even mealy-mouthed. It was debated loudly and robustly with more left-wing policies put forward and rejected.

The published manifesto was seen by some as a weak compromise. It was described by many in the Cabinet as Wilson’s successful attempt not to appear too socialist.

Yet it would not be considered by Sir Keir Starmer today. Or any day.

He has to woo voters who are not open to even the loosely defined politics of social democracy that exists in Scotland today. The constitutional question dominates Scottish politics but there is no substantial far-right, or even strongly right, tendency in support for home rule.

Increasingly, the union will be tugged at both ends. Gavin Esler in his excellent How Britain Ends suggests strongly that English nationalism may prompt the final rupture. This argument is intriguing if not fully persuasive to this observer. Or at least not yet.

But what seems undeniably clear is that England will not unanimously resist home rule for Scotland.

What if Johnson not only realises this but accepts it as an electoral imperative? What if it becomes crucial to the prospects of the Conservative Party, increasingly seen as the home of English nationalism? Is the Conservative and Unionist Party resolutely and indefatigably allied to the notion of Great Britain? The case of Northern Ireland and the Brexit fallout raises doubts.

It seems, too, that there is a difference in perspectives that cannot be reconciled.

England seeks redemption in its past. Scotland, or a substantial part of it, looks to the future for realisation of its ideals.

This conflict is not easily resolved, particularly when there is not the concerted will to do so.

Our columns are platforms for writers to express their opinions.They not necessarily represent the views of The Herald